OT: Sandusky defense rests; Sandusky will not testify

For those still following the grim saga: Jerry Sandusky will not testify after all. The defense did get in testimony from a number of people associated with the football program and the school, as well as Sandusky's wife, who testified that Sandusky is a great guy and/or that he had a great reputation. They also got in some evidence that possibly undermined the credibility of an accuser or two.

It seems from afar that the defense did about as well as they could given the facts and allegations that they had to deal with. My guess, FWIW, is that they hope that at least one juror is too much of a PSU fan to allow him or herself to believe that the allegations are true.

It's most important that the jury make a decision based on the facts in front of them, of course, and that decision sure looks from the available reports of the trial like it should be a finding of guilt. That said (and of much less concern), I think that Penn St. should hope for a guilty verdict, as odd as that may sound. A firestorm of negative attention will descend on Happy Valley if Sandusky is found not guilty, and the region will be tarred by this situation in a worse way than it already has been.

FINAL NOTE: Let's not take this thread down a bad path. Either a large number of children were abused or a man's life has been irrevocably damaged. We should hold off on our usual irreverance (which I enjoy most of the time).

I don't understand how that jury pool wasn't considered contaminated. I mean, yes, it was a national news story, so probably no jury could be found that hadn't heard about the allegations already. But weren't there a bunch of reports about how the jury was loaded with PSU alum, fans, etc?

It's telling that your concern is that he will get out of hock by having a jury that will support him. Remember, our justice system is Innocent until Proven Guilty. We should be equally, if not MORE concerned that a jury might be unduly hostile towards a defendent and not give him the opportunity for a fair trial. After all, wouldn't it be worse if on top of everything else an innocent man ended up in prison?

Don't be too quick to assume that the goal of a trial is to prosecute a wrongdoer. It's to find justice. A jury poisoned EITHER WAY is a travesty.

Hey, I agree with you on that general principle. But in this specific case, it's pretty hard to imagine any kind of impartial jury acquitting this guy, given the testimony from the alleged victims (there are eight people testifying that he sexually abused them as children), so the concern is going to be over partisanship in his favor.

The community's response to this has seemed oddly Lynchian. That seems like a strangely apt description. Kudos.

I'm pretty sure a bunch of administrators are getting charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury. I don't know if other people will be brought up on charges related to abetting via negligence (I'm not a lawyer and don't even know if that's a thing), though.

the AD and VP who lied to the Grand Jury will get their turn in the barrel. And based on the emails that came out, I'd assume they will be heading to the slammer. The former President may be hauled into court too. Of course, there is also likely to be civil lawsuits against PSU by the victims and their families. This court case is just the first act.

The problem was that, since the judge refused to move the trial, you're pulling from a county of 150k people that has a university with 45k students and probably 5k faculty/staff. It would have been nearly impossible to filter out everyone that had any affiliation whatsoever with PSU.

I haven't really followed the trial, but from how he's spoken publically about this before, I'm not sure why the defense had even considered letting this moron testify. Last I saw him speak, the man proved he is not charismatic and seems to have an uncanny ability at making himself seem even more suspcious and guilty.

Not that any of this really matters, because from what I have heard about this trial, it'll be a OJ-esque upset if he's not found quilty.

NBC didn't air the whole interview. Not even close. They aired 8 of 20 minutes, and they didn't even make the other 12 minutes available (MSNBC, CNBC, online, anything) until it came up in trial. Think this exchange of the interview from months ago might have hurt Sandusky?

By most accounts and in our opinion Costas did a great job interviewing Sandusky with only 15 minutes notice, but it turns out he did an even better job, by pointedly asking Sandusky if he was “Describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don’t necessarily abuse every young person.”

Sandusky’s reply, in part, sounds damning: “And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.’’

my mouth literally hung open when I heard that played a couple days ago. It is crazy chilling. How the hell did that not get run? Maybe it was too damning, and they were worried it would taint the process too much?

Did that clip end up getting put into evidence? I heard the clip, but never was sure if it was admitted for the jury to hear.

My impression is that the prosecution was going to use it if Sandusky testified...I don't know why the whole thing wasn't run. It was available to the public almost immediately, though. I remember reading it a day or so after NBC aired the edited interview.

Mike McQueary makes this an unusual case in that you typically don't have third-party witnesses to child abuse. His testimony was especially powerful, I think, given that the jury surely knows the damage that this situation has done to McQueary himself. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by making up the story that he testified to. I don't see how the defense gets around his testimony.

Agree with you on avoiding any discussion of prison rape. (Honestly, it is hard to imagine why anyone would even conceive of such a thing with Sandusky. Shudder.)

However, I think the appropriate punishment for Sandusky would involve solitary confinement, both for his own protection, and so that inmates wouldn't have to deal with him. I also think that solitary would be the best way to let him reflect on life choices these many years.

I have no idea where you're going with this, but the family guy character most resembling PSU (or more appropriately, Sandusky) that you are looking for is Hubert. Still, I have no idea what you're up to with this, but I'd thought I'd help out anyways.

Haven't had the chance to go to BK since the sundae's announcement, but I'm extremely intrigued. I'm not sure I would get it though, because nothing is more dissapointing than fast food bacon, and I wouldn't want subpar, cardboard bacon to ruin what my imagination thinks this novel concept tastes like.

Seriously, back to portabello's, got a great little family-owned Italian restaurant near us that makes the best portabello appetizer; if it weren't a bit rude, I'd be drinking the sauce out of the dish (the pancetta likely has something to do with that).

but Pros: Sandusky didn't incriminate himself further (see foot in mouth comments above)

Sandusky didn't get cross examined by the prosecution

Cons: He couldn't tell his side of the story

The Jury is directed to take him not testifying as a zero-sum action. they can't hold it against him or treat it as a positive, so no "if he were innocent he would have testified" thoughts. At least, that's what they're supposed to do.

Could be that the defense thought they had done enough to earn an acquittal, and having him testify was an unneccesary risk. Could be that they knew he would continue to say stupid and incriminating things. And it could be that they didn't want to open the door to certain rebuttal testimony.

It could also be that Sandusky's lawyer sucks. Because Sandusky's lawyer sucks.

Also in November, news broke that Amendola got a 17-year-old girl pregnant. Amendola, who was 49 at the time, was representing Mary Iavasile in 1996 in her emancipation hearing when he reportedly got the teenager pregnant.

He continually got out-maneuvered throughout the trial and period leading up to it... most notably enabling (not just allowing but actually enabling) the really damaging Costas interview -- and then compounding that by not pushing back harder when the prosecution got it admissible as evidence.

You saw the interview with Costas. Sandusky is a disaster with a microphone in front of him, even with such seeming softballs as "are you sexually attracted to young boys?" It's not unusual in the least to lack testimony by the accused himself, so while he misses a chance to undo some of the damage by the accusers, the risk of putting the nails into the coffin might outweigh it. The only prayer for the defense is to paint this as an overzealous prosecution with cops guiding statements from the accusers to conform to a pre-conceived narrative. Sandusky can't speak to any of that, so he's just as well keeping off the stand.

If I were the prosecutor, "are you sexually attracted to young boys" would be the first question I'd ask on cross-examination. I'm sure Amendola would object within 1 millisecond, or Sandusky would either say no or take the fifth or something, but I'd just be interested in having the jury observe Sandusky while he's being asked that. They can't use it if he takes the fifth, but they won't be able to block out his nonverbal reactions.

and testifies on direct examination to his defense counsel, he can't then assert the 5th Amendment. By testifying he is waiving that right. If defendant's could assert the privilege on cross-examination, every defendant would take the stand to tesify under questioning by their attorney and then assert when the prosecutor starts his/her cross-exam.

As a former prosecutor and current white collar attorney, I get so frustrated when people, particularly the media, assume that defense attorney's make the decision on whether a defendant testifies. The attorney can only give their best advice -- it's the defendant's constitututional right and ultimate decision whether to testify.

But to answer your question, I would have strongly advised him not to testify. Dude would have been crucified.

I appreciate this. As I am working for a public defender at the moment, I have been hung out to dry by some clients. I have done everything in my power to advise clients not to testify, yet the PD always looks bad when the client ultimately decides to testify - because people think it's the PD's choice.

I was totally hoping that Sandusky would testify. His defense seems so delusional that I could actually imagine him showing up in a trench coat and when asked to explain himself, he simply rises and flashes the entire courtroom.

Either this would be an apt (and somewhat surreally humorous) finish to the saga of this man's downward spiral. Or perhaps there is something glorious and about this man's penis but we could never known as long as we continue in our sheltered tyranny of clothes, showering alone and general culture of sexual repression awaiting the enlightenment of Sandusky. Probably the former, though.

Sandusky simply doesn't interview well. With that Costas interview, it seemed like Sandusky didn't understand the seriousness or gravity of the situation. How would you respond to such allegations? If innocent, one would expect an angry, furious and adamant denial of the charges, and more defensive behavior. Instead, Sandusky has appeared to be indifferent about it all, or resigned to the outcome. 500 years in jail?

be getting off on all of this as most serial rapists/pedophiles would and do.

We all question why he would not just plead guilty. Is it because he is reliving it all as each witness testifies and as each charge is described? I say YES and not because I know he is guilty but because I see a lot of the same mannerisms in his behavior as other convicted serial criminals.

In general, the reports I've read haven't gone into the testimony given. Reilly provides enough detail from the trial to make my skin crawl. I wish, for the sake of the victims, that Sandusky had just manned up instead of pleading "not guilty," thereby forcing the victims to testify.

This whole thing is a sad freak show, with very little positives. Maybe the only silver linings are the spotlight placed on the plight of abused children, and the raising of awareness of the MO of sexual predators.

are good liars or bad liars. One would think serial offenders get away with their abuse because they're such good liars. But you're right. Sandusky doesn't even seem aware that he should try to lie.

Perhaps a mental health professional could comment on whether this is a psychopathological variant to the standard underlying psychopathology or a shock-like reaction to being discovered and prosecuted, but I can't imagine any good lawyer would put him on the stand after his public statements.

Rick Reilly was a good and insightful writer 10-15 years ago, but now he's like Joe Buck in print - populism, exaggerated drama, and sanctimonious moralization.

It certainly appears likely that Sandusky did some horrible things, but lines like this drive me nuts:

"But all eight of these young men, ages 18 to 28, had to testify because Jerry Sandusky didn't have the guts or the courage or the decency to cop a plea and go to jail."

So people who are accused of crimes should just plead guilty rather than try to defend themselves, just to save the rest of us the pain of a trial? I get that this is a particularly awful situation, but that doesn't change the fact that Reilly's principle is asinine.

I think you're misinterpreting his point. He did not make a carte blanche statement saying that anyone who is "accused of crimes should just plead guilty rather than try to defend themselves." I interpreted it as Reilly assuming that Sandusky is guilty, so he should have had the decency to spare these men the pain and humiliation of having to tell their stories in front of strangers and family members, which is like a second round of abuse.

If you want to bash Reilly for writing an entire article based on one assumption, then go for it. But he's not saying that anyone who is accused of anything should just take it and move on. He's saying that if someone is accused of something, and she actually did what she was accused of, she should own up to it and move on.

I think whitedawg's point was that the whole basis of the U.S. criminal justice system is assuming people are not guilty until proven otherwise. ALL child sex abuse crimes are horrific -- this one is just splattered all over the 24/7 news cycle. Taken to it's logical conclusion, every defendant accused of criminal sexual conduct should just plead guilty. Problem is, this isn't the Soviet Union. The state is constituationally required to prove it's case. Reilly's thesis basically undermines the whole context of the criminal justice system. Throw in the fact that he advocates prison rape at the end, and it's just asinine.

is an idiot. He's now advocating prison rape. Let's just go all Stalin on their asses. Not to mention the fact that Sandusky is being tried in state court and will not be going to "general population in a federal prison." If anything, Reilly's comments about federal prison undercut his whole column advocating for prison rape for Sandusky. General population in a federal prison is a heck of a lot better than general prison in a state one. As you can tell, I hate Rick Reilly.

Reilly is moron. I remember when he wrote an article in Sports Illustrated that bashed the city of Detroit for no other reason than the Red Wings had knocked his Avalanche out of the playoffs. I've had no respect for him ever since. His overuse of anlaogies on ESPN are tiresome.

It would be very bad for PSU if he is acquitted. Not that it would be their fault, but it would make it seem as though the town was sympathetic toward this type of thing, not that he was honestly innocent.

Good or bad, Sandusky's lawyer was in a tough spot. Just very hard to explain away that many accusers. I agree that letting him testify would've been extremely risky.

With a case this strong, normally you'd see a plea bargain, but Sandusky had no incentive to deal, b/c there's no way he would've gotten anything less than a life sentence, so he had nothing to lose by taking his chances with the jury.

But I doubt that the combined ghosts of Clarence Darrow and Johnny Cochran could win this case.

How on Earth is it okay for a grown man to shower with children? At what point does someone say "Jerry, don't bring kids in the shower?" Forget the inappropriate contact, in my opinion just bringing the kids in the shower with adults who are not family is wrong.

That's pretty awful. I guess my point is that there could be a legitimate reason for an adult who is family to shower with a kid. There is no legit reason for Jerry Sandusky or any other college coach to shower with a kid.

This might be the worst question ever asked in the history of cross examination:

I just went with it," he said. "There was no fighting against it. … Sometimes [I'd] scream. Sometimes tell him to get off of me. But other than that, he was there, you were in a basement, no one can hear you down there."

I don't think I saw it mentioned in an earlier post, but I can't conceive of an acquital but rather a hung jury. Should that take place, I would assume the case would be retried with the prosecution asking for a change of venue the second time around.

If Sandusky, by some miracle, gets off, isn't there the strong possibility of federal prosecution?

what exactly are the feds prosecuting him with if he's found not guilty? Are they able to charge him with the full spectrum he's being charged with by the state, or will it be charges related to the IRS status his charity holds and whatnot?